Re: [gentoo-user] OT: Can a linux vmware guest tell if its host is CPU constrained?
> > > So should I run something like: date ; time > 100%CPU for a minute> ; date ? > > No, date will pull from your RTC, which is usually kept up to date with an > asynchronous > counter. > > First check GNU top(1) and look in the %Cpu line for "st." That is % CPU > time stolen. If it is > nonzero then the guest time's accounting is probably working. It's not > typical for the > hypervisor to hide this information. It's really important for load > balancing. > Thanks for that. I haven't seen any non-zero stolen time yet, however. FWIW vmstat also shows stolen time.
Re: [gentoo-user] Python 2.7 removal : problem with Firefox + Spidermonkey
On 7/29/20 1:21 PM, Simon Thelen wrote: [2020-07-29 13:11] Philip Webb Hi, I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7, but am stuck with this : root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7 Calculating dependencies... done! dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by: dev-lang/spidermonkey-60.5.2_p0-r4 requires >=dev-lang/python-2.7.5-r2:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads] www-client/firefox-68.10.0 requires dev-lang/python:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads(+)] Yes, I've looked in package.use & in the ebuilds & can't find any source of these requirements : can anyone help ? The dependencies on python2.7 are being added by the mozcoreconf eclasses. The firefox requirement is in eclass/mozcoreconf-v6.eclass, spidermonkey has essentially the same thing but in -v5.eclass I'm down to (9) or so. Periodically, I use this command to see where I am:: eix --installed-with-use python_targets_python2_7 and in the top of my package.use I have:: */* PYTHON_TARGETS: python3_6 python3_7 python3_8 python3_9 */* PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET: -* python3_7 */* PYTHON_TARGETS: -python2_7 There are many variants on these approaches, depending on how aggressively you want to get rid of python 2_7. Me, palemoon is my fav browser and it seems to be long term stuck on python 2.7.. Any suggests on a more secure, feature rich browser other than palemoon would be interesting to me to at least test. But, this is a system, with thousands of packages from gentoo (gentrified) proper, and dozens of other hacks. and dozens of my own (rev-5) ebuilds I'm too lazy/stupid to update to (rev-7). If I were only smarter and motivated.. As I age, I'm getting lazier; and that includes all things gentoo hth, James
Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail server
On 7/29/20 5:20 AM, Wols Lists wrote: On 29/07/20 00:11, james wrote: On 7/28/20 12:10 PM, Wols Lists wrote: On 28/07/20 16:01, james wrote: (2) DNS resolvers, (?) mail-servers for a robust mail system that "I" admin, and (1) internet facing web server and (1) internal only facing or limited outward facing Web server for development and security based testing. Static IP are basically $5/month from my ISP. Do you really want to pay for a static IP? I'd go IPv6 instead. I learnt my v4 in the days of 10-base-2, and I'd really love to update to punching holes in a v6 router. Limited risk, and no worries about static IPs, NATing, all that legacy stuff ... :-) Cheers, Wol So, IPv6 can be assigned without payment to an ISP? Besides having static IPs without bandwidth connections routed (assigned) to those IP6 addresses are not useful? If I go IPv6, where does the bandwidth come from? From your ISP? The OP's ISP charges EXTRA for a static address, which shouldn't be the case seeing as they have oodles of the things. Or maybe I'm out-of-date, seeing as my ISP in the old days provided a static IPv4 free of charge as a matter of course. Cheers, Wol Here is the US, too few regulators even comprehend your arguments or the state of commercial routing and networking. If ordinary folks can get their porn in a web browser, robustly, then it is classified as a 'great ISP'. What folk, with some measure of expertise, have, can and want to do, is often only comprehensible by third level support as these ISPs, if you get lucky. Free static IPs? Sure I like that idea, but I'd need a current link as in the US I think that was some years ago. I'll file for some, in a heartbeat, if anyone can point me to the registrar. Note:: here in the US, it may be easier and better, to just purchase an assignment, that renders them yours. I'd be shocked if you do not have to pay somebody residual fees, just like DNS. So sense there seems to be interest from several folks, I'm all interested in how to do this, US centric. I think each country sets policy on IP allocations from their (IP6) pool. A dozen or (2) pools, so I can test IoT gear, would be keen for my interests. For IoT, on aerial vehicles, the restrictions extreme, if you believe what has been published. Very, Very interested in this thread. Another quesiton. If you have (2) blocks of IP6 address, can you use BGP4 (RFC 1771, 4271, 4632, 5678,5936 6198 etc ) and other RFC based standards to manage routing and such multipath needs? Who enforces what carriers do with networking. Here in the US, I'm pretty sure it's just up to the the Carrier/ISP/bypass_Carrier/backhaul-transport company) Conglomerates with IP resources, pretty much do what they want, and they are killing the standards based networking. If I'm incorrect, please educated me, as I have not kept up in this space, since selling my ISP more than (2) decades ago. The trump-china disputes are only accelerating open standards for communications systems, including all things TCP/IP. curiously, James
[gentoo-user] Re: Local mail server
On 2020-07-29, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 13:59:11 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > >> Pricing isn't based on cost. Pricing is based on what people are >> willing to pay. People are willing to pay extra for a static IPv6 >> address, therefore static IPv6 addresses cost extra. > > Aren't all IPv6 addresses static? I don't know what most ISPs are doing. I couldn't get IPv6 via Comcast (or whatever they're called this week) working with OpenWRT (probably my fault, and I didn't really need it). So I never figured out if the IPv6 address I was getting was static or not. There is DHPCv6 (I've implemented it), but I have no idea if anybody actually uses it. Even if they are using DHCPv6, they can be using it to hand out static addresses. > Mine certainly are. The assumption always seemed to be that switching to IPv6 meant the end of NAT and the end of dynamic addresses. -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Python 2.7 removal : problem with Firefox + Spidermonkey
200729 i.Dark_Templar wrote: > 29.07.2020 20:11, Philip Webb пишет: >> I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7, >> but am stuck with this : >> >> root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7 >> Calculating dependencies... done! >> dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by: >> dev-lang/spidermonkey-60.5.2_p0-r4 requires >> >=dev-lang/python-2.7.5-r2:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads] >> www-client/firefox-68.10.0 requires >> dev-lang/python:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads(+)] >> > For firefox, it's in mozcoreconf-v6.eclass. Indeed, it is. Is there anything I can do re it today ? If not, are steps being taken by the devs to remove these requirements ? What might happen, if I simply remove Python-2.7 with -C ? Thanks for both responses. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatcadotinterdotnet
Re: [gentoo-user] Python 2.7 removal : problem with Firefox + Spidermonkey
[2020-07-29 13:11] Philip Webb Hi, > I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7, > but am stuck with this : > > root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7 > > Calculating dependencies... done! > dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by: > dev-lang/spidermonkey-60.5.2_p0-r4 requires > >=dev-lang/python-2.7.5-r2:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads] > www-client/firefox-68.10.0 requires > dev-lang/python:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads(+)] > > Yes, I've looked in package.use & in the ebuilds > & can't find any source of these requirements : can anyone help ? The dependencies on python2.7 are being added by the mozcoreconf eclasses. The firefox requirement is in eclass/mozcoreconf-v6.eclass, spidermonkey has essentially the same thing but in -v5.eclass -- Simon Thelen
Re: [gentoo-user] Python 2.7 removal : problem with Firefox + Spidermonkey
29.07.2020 20:11, Philip Webb пишет: > I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7, > but am stuck with this : > > root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7 > > Calculating dependencies... done! > dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by: > dev-lang/spidermonkey-60.5.2_p0-r4 requires > >=dev-lang/python-2.7.5-r2:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads] > www-client/firefox-68.10.0 requires > dev-lang/python:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads(+)] > > Yes, I've looked in package.use & in the ebuilds > & can't find any source of these requirements : can anyone help ? > It's in one of eclasses inherited by those ebuilds. For firefox, it's in mozcoreconf-v6.eclass.
[gentoo-user] Python 2.7 removal : problem with Firefox + Spidermonkey
I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7, but am stuck with this : root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7 Calculating dependencies... done! dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by: dev-lang/spidermonkey-60.5.2_p0-r4 requires >=dev-lang/python-2.7.5-r2:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads] www-client/firefox-68.10.0 requires dev-lang/python:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,ssl,threads(+)] Yes, I've looked in package.use & in the ebuilds & can't find any source of these requirements : can anyone help ? -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatcadotinterdotnet
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Local mail server
On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 16:55:27 BST antlists wrote: > I think there's static, and there's effectively static. > > If your router is running 24/7, then the IP won't change even if it's > DHCP. But your router only needs to be switched off or otherwise off the > network for the TTL (time to live), and DHCP will assign you a different > IP when it comes back. My ISP confirms that my addresses are static. Both IPv4 and IPv6. I don't pay extra for static addresses, though I did have to request a v4 one some years ago to avoid being blocked from this mail list. > That's server-side configuration, so if the ISP doesn't elicitly > allocate you an address in their DHCP setup, what you've got is > effectively static not really static. > > But it really should be so damn simple - take the ISP's network address, > add the last three octets of the customer's router or something like > that, and there's the customer's network v6 assigned to the customer's > router. One fixed address that won't change unless the customer changes > router or ISP. I don't recognise anything like that pattern in my addresses. > I need to learn how v6 works ... :-) Me too. I thought I was set up right, but I now doubt it. -- Regards, Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Local mail server
On 29/07/2020 16:41, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 13:59:11 BST Grant Edwards wrote: Pricing isn't based on cost. Pricing is based on what people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay extra for a static IPv6 address, therefore static IPv6 addresses cost extra. Aren't all IPv6 addresses static? Mine certainly are. I think there's static, and there's effectively static. If your router is running 24/7, then the IP won't change even if it's DHCP. But your router only needs to be switched off or otherwise off the network for the TTL (time to live), and DHCP will assign you a different IP when it comes back. That's server-side configuration, so if the ISP doesn't elicitly allocate you an address in their DHCP setup, what you've got is effectively static not really static. But it really should be so damn simple - take the ISP's network address, add the last three octets of the customer's router or something like that, and there's the customer's network v6 assigned to the customer's router. One fixed address that won't change unless the customer changes router or ISP. I need to learn how v6 works ... :-) Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Local mail server
On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 13:59:11 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > Pricing isn't based on cost. Pricing is based on what people are > willing to pay. People are willing to pay extra for a static IPv6 > address, therefore static IPv6 addresses cost extra. Aren't all IPv6 addresses static? Mine certainly are. -- Regards, Peter.
[gentoo-user] Re: Local mail server
On 2020-07-29, Wols Lists wrote: > ? I can understand a fee for a static IP4 - they've run out, > after all, and people are fighting over them ... > > Don't ISPs get a 2^64 allocation of IP6 *network* addresses? They > should just allocate one to your router and that's that! Still, I > wouldn't put it past them to charge extra for what should be free. Pricing isn't based on cost. Pricing is based on what people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay extra for a static IPv6 address, therefore static IPv6 addresses cost extra. -- Grant
[gentoo-user] emerge should tell me the reason for not accepting a PYTHON_TARGET
Hi, I'm on the way to rebuild all packages using Python to be built with Python3.9, as well I have created the corresponding ebuilds in a local overlay. But many times, emerge cannot proceed because one of the dependencies hasn't an ebuild for Python3.9, yet. Emerge tries to disable python3.9 for that package by an entry in /etc/portage/package.use. Looking at the ebuild one finds a dependency for a package which cannot be built for Python3.9, yet. How can I make emerge tell me this type of conflict? I'm using --verbose-conflict --autounmask-backtrack=y already. Many thanks for a hint, Helmut
Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail server
On 29/07/20 00:11, james wrote: > On 7/28/20 12:10 PM, Wols Lists wrote: >> On 28/07/20 16:01, james wrote: >>> (2) DNS resolvers, (?) mail-servers for a robust mail system that "I" >>> admin, and (1) internet facing web server and (1) internal only facing >>> or limited outward facing Web server for development and security based >>> testing. Static IP are basically $5/month from my ISP. >> >> Do you really want to pay for a static IP? I'd go IPv6 instead. >> >> I learnt my v4 in the days of 10-base-2, and I'd really love to update >> to punching holes in a v6 router. Limited risk, and no worries about >> static IPs, NATing, all that legacy stuff ... :-) >> >> Cheers, >> Wol >> > > > So, IPv6 can be assigned without payment to an ISP? Besides having > static IPs without bandwidth connections routed (assigned) to those IP6 > addresses are not useful? > > > If I go IPv6, where does the bandwidth come from? > >From your ISP? The OP's ISP charges EXTRA for a static address, which shouldn't be the case seeing as they have oodles of the things. Or maybe I'm out-of-date, seeing as my ISP in the old days provided a static IPv4 free of charge as a matter of course. Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail server
On 29/07/20 00:18, james wrote: > It's the bandwidth provider's policy. Static IPs (4 or 6) requires a > monthly fee. If you know a way around this, with full privileges one > gets with static IP addresses, I'm all ears.? ? I can understand a fee for a static IP4 - they've run out, after all, and people are fighting over them ... Don't ISPs get a 2^64 allocation of IP6 *network* addresses? They should just allocate one to your router and that's that! Still, I wouldn't put it past them to charge extra for what should be free. > > I do not want some limited/dysfunctional solution. I want/need the full > ability of what static IPs addresses bring. (all ports open etc). That's not what a static IP brings, that's what a "globally known" IP brings - if your router advertises its address to something like dyndns every time it starts, you'll have the same result. Snag is, that's a chargeable subscription, I believe. > > I am curious about your details via IPv6 and static (permanently > assigned ) addresses. That's why I need to dig and investigate :-) My first ISP in the days of dial-up allocated a static IP as a matter of course. Not only was it useful to use, it suited them because customers could only use it on one computer at a time otherwise routing got screwed up :-) Then we went to broadband, and in effect it was static because the modem/router was always on ... It'll be interesting digging through all this. Just try and make sure you use your router as a firewall. I think my router drops all incoming connections BY DEFAULT. But I can open up any port I want, either to re-route to an internal computer or just pass through to it. My first investigations would be (1) how do I advertise my router's network address on dyndns, and (2) once the outside world knows my IP, how do I let stuff through my router/firewall. Cheers, Wol
